What’s unusual here is the proposed tower’s un-Meier surface and shape: a tall tapered cone wrapped in what now is mullion-free glass, broken only by two slits from base to sky that would emphasize the sleek height and make the glass “appear veil-like,” Meier said in a phone interview. His signature white-metal panels would appear only at the base. There, glass gives way to three stories that are unmistakably modern, yet in scale with the best nearby buildings.

According to Meier, the soft slender form is a response to the triangular site wedged between Market and Oak streets. “It’s a rare opportunity to have a building relaxed, but open on all sides,” he said. “There’s really space around it.”

Tentatively dubbed “One Van Ness,” King hints that the proposed 400-foot building should start weaving its way through Planning and the public by the end of the year.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

Considering that corner’s convergence of some of the most blandly hideous multistory office architecture in the city, why not throw in something that looks like a broken plastic light fixture from Ikea. We can even give it an appropriate Ikea-esque name: Marness, or Varket..

I like it. It’s certainly an improvement over the POS doughnut shop that’s squatting there on the corner.
Although I dread what it will look like after it’s been watered down by all the various SF gov. agencies.

I like it, and you know, I gotta say, there might not be a better site in the city to get an iconic new large building. The intersection of two of the city’s main thoroughfares, at a major MUNI station, where there’s currently an underutilized monstrosity of architecture (seriously, who EVER thought the All Star building was a good idea???)

I love the building, but I expect strong opposition from the usual suspects decrying ‘Manhattanization’ and how the building is out of character with the neighborhood by allowing a 40 story building to cross Van Ness.
Bottom line, I would be truly shocked if this happened in my lifetime.
[Editor’s Note: Keep in mind this parcel was officially upzoned to 400 feet back in 2008 (not that that would preclude any opposition).]

Strikes me as odd to put a residential tower right at the intersection of the City’s two major streets, as opposed to office space which would be used by far more people per day, but I like the building. I’m all for tall, tall towers near transit stops in residential neighborhoods. In commercial/office areas, even with some residences in the mix, I’d put the res towers a block or two away.
But that’s just me.
Oh, one more thing. No dead space along the sidewalks!!! (can’t quite tell from the photo and too busy right this minute to investigate the plans)

The design is tremendous. I love its exterior and its height. Unfortunately, this being San Francisco, where everything is designed and watered down by committee, it will probably end up looking like the surrounding pieces of sh*t. *sigh*

21st century flatiron?
More like 21st century Fox Plaza.
Will this increase the wind tunnel effect of other buldings in mid-Market?
If they are going to build this, it should have its own direct access to the subway station, so people who live there can avoid the filth, stolen goods sidewalk sale, shopping carts, and other lovely aspects of that corner.

no matter how nice this is – and it’s nice – i’ll be vocally opposed to any project that doesn’t include a retail wrap at grade. it’s completely essential for the area, and absolutely nothing should be built there that doesn’t include it – especially considering the lane entrance for the parking. no/insufficient retail component = unhelpful to the area.

With Twitter HQ, Trinity Place, and the new apartment tower under construction at Market & 10th, the city is clearly interested in making Civic Center into a viable “midtown” district. I hope that means this tower gets approved in some form close to this gorgeous rendering.

The tower would be a joke if the Donut Shop remains in front as proposed. The developer currently will not buy the property and included it in the tower as the Market-Octavia Plan intended. The shop owner is willing to sell. People should tell the Planning Department that this project would be an abomination if the Donut Shop is not included.

This is really a beautiful high-rise, the type of buidling this location needs since it will be fully visible from Twin Peaks Dolores Park etc (including my house) – the new Market Octavia height limits assures that the western side will never be blocked so a dynamic and scultural building is really improtant here (too bad Rincon isn’t of this quality).
As much as I want this to be built there is one thing visible in one of the renderings on SFGate that shouldn’t be built-it appears that there is a barrier across Oak Street-why? Does the developer propose privatizing a major street? Is there some kind of bridge to 25 Van Ness? I can understand that the parking entry will be on Oak Street and traffic coming from Van Ness should be restricted but this project can be done without blocking Oak Street.

The donut shop also houses the elevator to the Muni Metro station (probably why that building was built in the first place) so somehow the builder will have to either keep the elevator in place and build a new building around it or build a new elevator to the station mezzanine. It would be great if an entire new entry (with stairs, escalators and elevator) to the underground were built as part of this project.

Beautiful. Doubt it would transform the street level unless they put some awesome retail/cafe? down there, but it would still just be a lovely building to grace our urban fabric, a la Gherkin in London.

Donut Shop must go. I’m not sure what compulsions or incentives the City can apply, but getting rid of the shop must be connected to this.
And yes, although expensive, a new Muni entrance/plaza might be exactly the right thing, given the increasing prominence of this location.

Bold? Iconic?
Sort of reminds me of calimari dim sum, or a curling candy wrapper.
Being inside will be like living behind a scrim. Natural light, often muted by fog and clouds, will be dim and the views will be perpetually fuzzy. It may look OK, but once again, starchitecture at the expense of practicality.

Then you have never been up close, around, or in a building by Richard Meier and Partners before.
Their work is stunning, richly detailed, spare, beautiful, bold and iconic.
All of those adjectives fit their work. This would be a great addition to San Francisco if it gets built.